fortin@zap.UUCP (Denis Fortin) (05/25/90)
Greetings!
I am running ix/386 v.2.0.2, and I have a couple of uucp
neighbours which have UPPERCASE characters in their machine names. This
causes a problem with sendmail because on a "mail user@SITE.uucp", it
turns the name into "site" and then complains that "site" is unknown.
I thought of making the entry for "SITE" be "site" in my Systems
file, but then the problem shifts: HDB uucp will not recognize "SITE" as
"site" when it logs into my machine.
Before I start thinking of big ugly patches, could someone suggest
a way of telling HDB that SITE and site and functionally equivalent machines?
(I don't have the full documentation for the "Permissions" file)
If not, are there any other ways of fixing this?
Thanks in advance...
PS. Changing the remote machine names is not really an alternative at this
point (yes, I know about RFC822).
--
Denis Fortin | fortin@zap.uucp
DMR Group Inc. | uunet!philmtl!zap!fortin
The opinions expressed above are my own | fortin%zap@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edules@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (05/27/90)
In article <1893@zap.UUCP> fortin@zap.UUCP (Denis Fortin) writes: > I am running ix/386 v.2.0.2, and I have a couple of uucp >neighbours which have UPPERCASE characters in their machine names. This >causes a problem with sendmail because on a "mail user@SITE.uucp", it > Before I start thinking of big ugly patches, could someone suggest >a way of telling HDB that SITE and site and functionally equivalent machines? >(I don't have the full documentation for the "Permissions" file) I've only used smail - won't sendmail do a case-insensitive match in the pathalias data, then substitute the literal path, uppercase and all? HDB uucp can lie about the site name but it would have to be done at the remote machine. Their Permissions file can have something like: LOGNAME=yourlogin MACHINE=yourmachine MYNAME=lowername along with the other desired options. Note that "yourlogin" should be unique unless they want to do this for everyone. The LOGNAME field is used to locate the Permissions file entry when you call them. The MACHINE field is used when they call you. Les Mikesell les@chinet.chi.il.us
bill@TWG.UUCP (Bill Irwin) (05/31/90)
In article <1893@zap.UUCP> fortin@zap.UUCP (Denis Fortin) writes: >Greetings! > > I am running ix/386 v.2.0.2, and I have a couple of uucp >neighbours which have UPPERCASE characters in their machine names. This >causes a problem with sendmail because on a "mail user@SITE.uucp", it >turns the name into "site" and then complains that "site" is unknown. > > I thought of making the entry for "SITE" be "site" in my Systems >file, but then the problem shifts: HDB uucp will not recognize "SITE" as >"site" when it logs into my machine. > > Before I start thinking of big ugly patches, could someone suggest >a way of telling HDB that SITE and site and functionally equivalent machines? >(I don't have the full documentation for the "Permissions" file) I encountered this problem when installing our system. Our system name is "TWG", but mail would not transfer properly. I was told to put "MYNAME=twg" in the Permissions entry for the connecting site...and it worked! I know the "gettydefs" file could have all "@" replaced with "TWG", then change "/etc/systemid" to "twg", but I thought this was more elegant with less future administrivia to worry about. Good luck. -- Bill Irwin TWG The Westrheim Group ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ uunet!van-bc!twg!bill (604)431-9600 (voice) (604)431-4629 (fax) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fortin@zap.UUCP (Denis Fortin) (06/01/90)
In article <1893@zap.UUCP> I wrote: > I am running ix/386 v.2.0.2, and I have a couple of uucp >neighbours which have UPPERCASE characters in their machine names. This >causes a problem with sendmail because on a "mail user@SITE.uucp", it >turns the name into "site" and then complains that "site" is unknown. The problem was solved with the help of a few helpful usenet folks: the answer was simply to add a "h" in the flags entry (F=) of my "uux mailer" in my sendmail.cf file to tell sendmail that this mailer did not want case-folded host names. Sigh. 't would have been much simpler if ix/386 came with documentation for sendmail.cf! Oh well. Thanks to everyone who sent suggestions! -- Denis Fortin | fortin@zap.uucp DMR Group Inc. | uunet!philmtl!zap!fortin The opinions expressed above are my own | fortin%zap@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
jackv@turnkey.TCC.COM (Jack F. Vogel) (06/04/90)
In article <1906@zap.UUCP> fortin@zap.UUCP (Denis Fortin) writes: >Sigh. 't would have been much simpler if ix/386 came with documentation >for sendmail.cf! Oh well. It does!! ISC has a whole manual devoted to sendmail and it includes more information on the cf file than I have ever seen elsewhere including the meaning of the macros, the flow of the rulesets, etc. I am not sure if your mailer flag is documented or not, but you can't fault ISC considering they do an above-average job of documenting a public-domain software package. Disclaimer: These are my opinions, not my employer. -- Jack F. Vogel jackv@locus.com AIX370 Technical Support - or - Locus Computing Corp. jackv@turnkey.TCC.COM